Comments

Thank-you Governor Brownback. This article is written from a liberal viewpoint and only focuses on one aspect of the law that didn't actually make it this time, this legislation is a major boost for the safety of the people of the now great State of Kansas.

We can also rejoice in today's news from the Senate in DC. toomey, collins, mccain and kirk had better start thinking about new vocations.

Odd because, as a conservative, I would think that legislating a person's medical choices — such as if a mother must abort a child to live — would be considered "too much government control." Funny (actually depressing) how that works. Brownie is just as much into control as those liberals you're afraid of

then you need to do some research, nothing point to more guns equaling less gun related crimes and accidents. there is a reason the US has more than 7x the percentage of gun related crimes then the next country.

Exactly. And when you can show me data that legal gun owners committed these crimes...you will have a valid point. Until then your admission that "The crime rate rises every year" only justifies the need to uphold the constitution and continue to allow people to defend themselves. Thanks for making my point.

the numbers of gun crimes continues to grow at the breakneck speed, what other stats do you need? Do you not think that this is because of more guns, or that gun owners are not responsible if their guns are stollen, or that is is legal to sell you gun to your neighbor that may have just gotten out of jail as long as you claim that you didn't know.

Safe from who or what exactly? The last few incidents had the loonies wearing body armor FFS, and your pistol is going to do nothing for you when it comes to concealed high explosive bombs. This law is dumb, useless, and will have hardly any effect at all other than showing exactly how messed up the current GOP legislative priorities are.

This law is to School Safety what the photo ID law is to Elections Fraud: A solution in search of a problem.

How exactly is this article written from a liberal viewpoint? Because it is written in a newspaper? It contains nothing but a bit of history of gun legislation in Kansas and opinions on both side of the issue. Is it a liberal viewpoint because it actually shows that there ARE two sides to the issue?

I like the way Brownbackward is for the US constitution when it align with his wacky agenda but belittles it when it doesn't. The constitution isn't an a la carte menu. We have a right to privacy, and health care should be solely between a doctor and patient. Lets also not forget the whole well regulated militia clause to the 2nd amendment...

The bill sent to the Gov. was veto proof. I can agree that there are students at KU I wouldn't trust with a squirt gun, some instructors too. I have a hard time telling a Veteran that just came home from Iraq & has a cch that they can't carry. I haven't called anyone names on here, ever, but many of those that don't agree with me don't have a problem calling me a redneck or uneducated, of which I am neither. I carry when I can, honor all posted signs, and don't carry into peoples homes, unless I know it is OK. Most of the time I still don't carry. I have had more training than just what is required by the State of Kansas for a cch, am very careful what I carry & how I carry it. To look at me, you would never know. That is the way it is supposed to be. If a madman wants to kill, they will find a way. I don't want them hurting my family or myself, or some other innocent person. And yes I am aware about the guy in Olathe that was dumb enough to carry in his pocket without a proper pocket holster. I have had my life threatened 3 times by students with mental problems. The current law says a person with mental problems cannot buy a gun. In the case of that wacko in Newtown, his Mom bought the guns, then didn't keep them in a safe. I don't mean a cheap security cabinet, I mean a gunsafe. Yes they are expensive, but worth every penny. Something in that whole Lanza family seems wrong to me. I would like to see more security in all of our schools, and public buildings. We don't seem to have the money for this, but we can spend 25 million on a rec center at 10 highway & plowed ground, a library in the day of electronic books and info. Our high schools have finest available sports complexes, but in building security is a joke.

I'm all for people being allowed to carry concealed. The part that riles me about the gun control debate is those who don't want to include background checks. Leaving that step out of the equation is naive and irresponsible.

I completely agree with you. I am a CCH holder and I would not want someone Joe Shmoe off the streets that has zero instruction on how to shoot or someone who has a criminal history above speeding tickets to be carrying a weapon along side me or anyone else for that matter.

Here's the problem Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little and the unwise students with the same juvenile opinions: Constitutional rights do not change with the winds of public opinion. Who cares what people on campus want? It's not about them. It's about an American's right to protect themselves. That's it.

Excuse me, I believe my out of state tuition is close to or more than what you pay in taxes. If the student body is in agreement, then of course we should be allowed to ban guns on our campus. Don't like it? Don't come to campus. If you're not a student, faculty member, parent, or alum, you have very little reason to come up here anyway. Knock on wood we haven't had an incident with gun violence while I've been a student. I commend the administration and the regents for putting the safety of students and faculty above politics. I worry for the other public buildings that will now be subject to this law, especially the schools.

Actually poof, I can read just fine. Anyone carrying a gun where they are not supposed to would be violating the law, whether their permit is valid or not. If it doesn't protect criminal activity, why would the amendment protect the perpetrator from "criminal prosecution?"

You contradicted yourself there. If they are not subject to "criminal prosecution", then they aren't charged with a crime. Again, you prove my point. You ignore the fact that CRIMINALS that want to inflict harm, won't follow the law. This bill gives Law Abiding citizens a chance to defend themselves.

Actually you don't have to prosecuted to be a criminal, just break the law. Lots of criminals are never charged with ANYTHING. I've broken many laws I've never been charged with.

The amendment itself is written to neuter existing limitations on where one could carry a gun legally. Basically, even though everyone knows that I'm not allowed to carry a gun on campus, including me, I will. And when I'm found, for whatever reason, to be carrying a gun where it is obviously posted and general knowledge that it is prohibited, I'm protected.

Why are we so worried about protecting "responsible" gun owners if they can't even be held responsible for their gun? I can legally drink, but not on a public sidewalk. If you consider yourself responsible enough to carry a loaded gun capable of ending someone's life, shouldn't you also be responsible for knowing where you can lawfully do that?

Finally! Now I can defend myself on my campus and not just the store across the street, or walmart across town. The magical imaginary illusion of being safer on campus than across the street ends in Kansas.

Someone should let Kansas Board of Regents know that Pittsburg State University surveyed students and the majority of them want to be allowed to carry.

Your family is asleep. I break into your house and am creeping around with a gun. Are you justified in shooting me? Of course you are. No sane American, police or judge will say no. Then what is the difference if I am walking through KU's campus with my family as an armed criminal opens fire on civilians? (Va Tech) Why does the logic somehow change and that I can't defend my family wherever I go?

Because when you are in a public space, Pork_Ribs, you are not in your own private space. In your home, you can know for sure whether someone is an invited guest in your private space, or an intruder. And yes, you can shoot to kill there.

But in public, who appointed you the guardian of public safety? How can you tell who is dangerous and who is not? Maybe that young man grabbing that shopping bag from an old lady is her grandson, trying to relieve her of a heavy burden. Maybe that person brandishing a weapon is just another wanna-be hero, like you, who nominated himself to do crowd control. Unless you have police or military training so you can use a firearm safely and react properly in an emergency, and you are part of a well regulated militia to ascertain that you haven't gone paranoid or weirdly attracted to guns and death, you aren't making anyone safer by carrying a weapon. If you are truly worried about your family's safety on the street, you'd be 100% in favor of strict gun control.

BUT there was an assumption that they could tell who the bad guy was. If many people are carrying, and thinking the same as pork_ribs, and whip out their weapon, how does anyone know WHO the bad guy is? How do police know who the bad guy is if they see a bunch of cc holders carrying guns, hiding or running around? Is anyone gonna be able to differentiate between the criminal and the holder, besides, hopefully, the police?

all cops carry. they're good people mostly. sometimes, however good cops can become unhinged. they have acted on impulse and have done pretty ugly things. or really go off and premeditate some pretty ugly things. and their service revolvers have been involved.

if you look at the group of cops and the group of concealed carry permit holders, i'd say it's likely that the cop group is more likely to be stable and unlikely to do bad things,
so, now we have a group of gun toters who are likely to have SOME members who will at some time become unhinged and have the right to carry their firearm into any frickin' public building or courtroom or senate/house chamber if it is their wish to do so. if i was a judge/public official who potentially could create some ill will among the public, i'd sure like to feel safe from confrontation with a firearm in my office where anybody can find me.

does anyone remember news out of colorado or texas recently where public officials have come face to face with a firearm? yeah, i know it happened at home, but plenty of people have met their makers seated at their office desk when a disgruntled person with a gun came to get them. i lost a childhood friend to that very situation.

what it comes down to is there is a basic assumption that concealed permit holders are not vulnerable to the human frailties that beset us all. this is a false assumption.

i fear any class of people who are given a blanket free pass to carry a firearm into a building with public officials. public officials have to do unpopular things. it was a justice of the peace in texas who became unhinged and killed those officials and one's wife. wouldn't you think you have nothing to fear from a justice of the peace? anyone can become unhinged given the wrong/right combination of circumstances. our public officials don't need to become more vulnerable than they already are.

Angelus, your comment is the logical one, but people don't want to think logically for themselves anymore. They just spew the crap they see/hear on tv as truth. They don't want to know that crime drops when Conceal/Carry is implemented. They don't want you to defend your family, just wait for the cops to show up in 10 minutes. And the ultimate truth: Unstable/Criminal people will KILL regardless of Gun Laws. Lanza did it. Aurora guy did it. The Obama Gun Bill wouldn't have changed any of those shootings.

Conceal/Carry at least gives you a chance to defend yourself and your family.